Quote:
What constitutes dealing with terrorism? Our adventure i Iraq has been acknowledged by nearly everyone to have increased the rolls of Al Queada. In Afghanistan we've been supported by our NATO allies, but we chose to pull forces from there to fight in Iraq.
Part of the problem with neo-con foreign policy is the seeming belief that any military action in the ME is a good thing. I believe that events have shown us that military intervention can sometimes leave us weaker than no intervention. The issue isn't intervention or isolation, it's about the judgment necessary to determine good intervention from bad intervention.
|
A lot of things constitute dealing with terrorism, but certainly a definition of that must include confronting it wherever it is found. I think it's clear that the rolls of Al Qaida would have increased regardless of our involvement in Iraq. They certainly weren't going away if we'd stopped at Afghanistan.
I don't think hardly anybody believes that ANY military attack in the ME is a good thing. Certainly there can be substantive reasons to be against the Iraq War but the question then becomes how do we deal with Islamic terrorism? Every idea I've heard has boiled down to either taking action to deprive them of safe havens or acting only when the world community is on our side, and I've already expressed what I think about that one.